They have to Prove It

Did you know that pet food manufacturers are required to prove all label and website claims? Here’s how you can play a significant role in holding pet food manufacturers accountable for their claims.

Take a look at the following examples of a pet food website and the pet food label…

The Cesar pet food brand holds the trademark name of “Home Delights”. The pet food description on the Cesar website claims “is the taste of home” and (more than) alludes to human grade quality of ingredients stating “made from ingredients that can be found in your own kitchen.”

The pet food packaging…

…makes claims of “Real Beef” and “Real Vegetables” plus includes an image of an actual human meal (alluding to the pet food “Flavor” Pot Roast).

This pet food is telling consumers – through words and images – that this dog food is human food pot roast in a bag.

Per the law, all pet foods are required to prove label and website claims are truthful.

Let’s look at the law.

Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) pet food regulation PF2(c) states: “A vignette, graphic, or pictorial representation on a pet food or specialty pet food label shall not misrepresent the contents of the package.”

It’s very simple, pictures on pet food labels MUST represent the contents within the pet food package. Per regulation PF2(c) the above exampled pet food is required to contain chunks of raw beef and vegetables as well as cooked beef and vegetables – just like what the image on the package displays. Anything less would mean the ‘pictorial representation’ of the pet food misrepresents the contents of the package.

Per AAFCO, pet food manufacturers are required to provide evidence/proof of all claims. “All claims are required to be supported by sound scientific or empirical evidence.” “The rules apply to all graphics and text in all labeling about the product.”

Empirical evidence“is information that verifies the truth (which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.”

In other words, when questioned by a regulatory authority or consumer – pet food manufacturers are required to provide empirical evidence. In this case empirical evidence could be photographs of ingredients prior to manufacturing – to verify the accuracy of an image on a pet food label. Regulation clearly states images should “not misrepresent the contents of the package” – and when a request is made, the manufacturer is required to have evidence to support any image on the pet food label.

Responsibility.

AAFCO also tells us: “It is the state feed control official’s responsibilityin regulating pet food to ensure that the laws and rules established for the protection of companion animals and their custodians are complied with so that only unadulterated, correctly and uniformly labeled pet food products are distributed in the marketplace and a structure for orderly commerce.”

Our State Department of Agriculture officials are the individuals responsible for enforcing law. Why aren’t they? Perhaps because they need to hear from consumers…pushing them to fully and properly enforce law.

Consumers voice.

Whenever you see a pet food label or website that displays beautiful images of ‘food’ ingredients, ask for the empirical evidence of ‘food’ ingredients in the pet food from your State Feed Control Official.

On your state’s page, locate the email address of your “Main State Feed Control Official Contact”. And send that individual an email similar to the following…

(Using the above exampled Cesar dog food as the example.)

Subject: potential violation of labeling rules

I am a pet food consumer within the state of (insert your state). I am requesting empirical evidence to the ingredients used in Cesar Home Delights Pot Roast Flavor with Garden Vegetables dry dog food. The pet food label displays chunks of raw beef and vegetables, and displays what appears to be human edible cooked pot roast. You can see these images on the Cesar website here: https://www.cesar.com/products/dry/pot-roast-flavor-with-garden-vegetables.

AAFCO regulation PF2(c) states: “A vignette, graphic, or pictorial representation on a pet food or specialty pet food label shall not misrepresent the contents of the package.” The AAFCO website states: “All claims are required to be supported by sound scientific or empirical evidence.” “The rules apply to all graphics and text in all labeling about the product.”

Again, the ‘pictorial representation’ of this dog food displays chunks of raw beef and vegetables, and displays what appears to be human edible cooked pot roast. I am requesting the empirical evidence that supports the accuracy of the images on the label and on the website. If such evidence cannot be provided, I am requesting a stop sale order be issued for this pet food due to label violations (misleading images).

Thank you in advance for your investigation into this compliance issue.

(Your name.)

If you want to call to the regulatory authority’s attention more details of a pet food’s marketing alluding to human grade claims, this paragraph can be added…(again, for example purposes – the Cesar dog food displayed above is used)…

This Cesar dog food includes the following statement alluding to human grade ingredients: “made from ingredients that can be found in your own kitchen.” It is my understanding that human grade claims “is only acceptable in reference to the product as a whole. The feed term specifies that every ingredient and the resulting product must be stored, handled, processed, and transported in a manner that is consistent and compliant with regulations for current good manufacturing practices (cGMPs) for human edible foods as specified in 21 CFR part 117.” Source: AAFCO Guidelines for Human Grade Claims (1). If this pet food does not meet all the requirements of the human grade claim, should they be allowed to tell consumers the pet food is made from human grade ingredients?

Consumers can also ask pet food manufacturers for the empirical evidence validating the accuracy of images on a pet food label/website. Example email to a pet food manufacturer…

Subject: validation of label claims

(Using the above exampled Cesar dog food as the example.)

I am requesting empirical evidence to the ingredients used in Cesar Home Delights Pot Roast Flavor with Garden Vegetables dry dog food. The pet food label displays chunks of raw beef and vegetables, and displays what appears to be human edible cooked pot roast.

AAFCO regulation PF2(c) states: “A vignette, graphic, or pictorial representation on a pet food or specialty pet food label shall not misrepresent the contents of the package.” The AAFCO website states: “All claims are required to be supported by sound scientific or empirical evidence.” “The rules apply to all graphics and text in all labeling about the product.”

Again, the ‘pictorial representation’ of this dog food displays chunks of raw beef and vegetables, and displays what appears to be human edible cooked pot roast. I am requesting the empirical evidence that supports the accuracy of the images on the label.

Thank you in advance for providing validation to your label claims.

(Your name.)

Just to show how bad this problem of misleading images is (how regulatory needs more than a little push from consumers to enforce law), below are just a few examples of labels/websites that could be misleading…

This picture of a FreshPet dog fooddirectly links an image of grilled chicken to the dog food product:

Freshpet should provide empirical evidence that grilled chicken is in this dog food.

This Iams cat food displays slices of roasted turkey, the name of the product includes the claim “Slow Cooked Turkey”…

Iams should provide empirical evidence that roasted turkey is in this cat food and provide evidence the turkey was slow cooked.

The Iams website claims this dog food is “made with high-quality animal proteins”…

And this Merrick dog food displays an array of human grade ingredients including grilled chicken…

If all of these graphic and text claims are accurate – then each company should have no problem providing a consumer or regulatory authorities with the empirical evidence validating the claim. But if they are not accurate/truthful claims, these pet food companies (and many more) are guilty of mislabeling and these pet foods should immediately be pulled from store shelves for misleading consumers.

We need to ask for the evidence to the claims. All claims.

Any consumer can request the scientific or empirical evidence to any label or website claim. It is your right to be provided with the evidence and their responsibility to provide it. If they claim it, they must prove it. By spending just a few minutes sending an email, consumers can play an active role in the regulatory process by holding manufacturers and regulatory authorities accountable to law. Those few minutes helps all pet food consumers.

Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.

Related News

Comment11

Jan
May 02, 2018

Thank you for again providing wonderful information. I am now switching over to raw and my cat just LOVES it! she has been a very picky eater and I should have listened to her “picky” eating before but better later than never. She is acting like a kitten again. I am thrilled beyond comprehension.

Great comment. However, the product and the company must be registered with the state to sell the product. How can you complain about a product if it is not registered. The lists of registered products are usually outdated and not up to date. Consumers also need to scrutinize the ingredients list since all pet food including treats are covered under FDA food regulations. Any authorized food additive adulterates the food and renders it illegal for interstate commerce. Then, check the 2018 AAFCO ingredients to see if the compound/additive is listed. FDA claims no enforcement if ingredient is listed in AAVCO but not listed in FDA food additives or GRAS. Read your labels carefully.
Sparky

i just got certification for my two jerkys, sweet potato chips and a cookie in the state of NC. Each product cost me $115 to be examined for analysis to go on my bag and to have each product label compliant. I am NOT allowed to say human grade nor USDA Grade A though every meat is purchased from the grocery store is grade A. I was told that the only way to say human grade was to have the FDA come in and I asked how to do that. Then I was told that the FDA would not check the meat but they would the potatoes. In all sincerity though I know the quality of what I sent (and that was about a $50 loss) there do not seem to be any strict guidelines for anything. The FDA is barely covering our food and I promise you dog food is way down on any list they have. Two of my products contain one ingredients 100 % chicken breast and london broil. I can say chicken only in the ingredient part of my label but can say the 100% chicken breast in my food name-same goes for the beef. When i got specific about the cheese I used in the ingredients (colby cheddar) I was told to replace that with just the word cheese.

QUESTION: I can’t find the previous articles right now. But I thought we agreed the only thing PF companies are held to, is accurate labeling. And even then, when they make a formula change, they’re given time to update to label to match (which used to be understood as being 6 months). When it comes to images on the bag, there was a lawsuit defense which said, but consumers know the image is only a suggestion, and know enough not to take the picture literally. I thought it had something to do with “freedom of speech.” And that websites can say what they want, just as long as PF labels are accurate. For example, Champion was saying (for a while, on their website) ingredients are human edible. But you couldn’t find the statement on their bag. I remember reading … to some degree … PF manufactures are given a type of “freedom of speech” (or license) to describe their product as they wish!

What has changed? And if so, why aren’t all the discrepancies eligible for prosecution? Consumers shouldn’t have to force this issue. Manufacturers should be held for breaking the law!! I don’t get it.

Regulatory response has historically been these label claims are Freedom of Speech. But – law does not agree with their opinion. Law doesn’t say they can have this type of ‘Freedom of Speech’. The goal is for consumers to sort of be in their face – hold regulatory accountable to law. Not their opinion, law. Hope that makes sense.

Fresh Pet seems to be a good example for examination. It’s not on the preferred list even though it seems like an ideal pet tood. Certainly to the average PF Consumer! See https://freshpet.com/products/freshpet-select-grain-free-tender-chicken-garden-vegetables-dog-food-recipe/ However there’s something about the long standing Fresh Pet TV commercials, which are bothersome. The one about the dog who has suddenly stopped eating (suggesting near death) who miraculously recovers eating Fresh Pet, and reaching 13 years. It just seems so anecdotal. And I worry that a pet owner might try to keep on switching up a pet’s food, as a substitution for medical care. Looking at the ingredients, it seems to have the perfect (clean array) of them. It’s not a complicated recipe, as the images strongly suggest. The carrot is more perfect than the ones I buy at the store.

And yet the TAPF wrote an article about Fresh Pet which is really disturbing See https://truthaboutpetfood.com/freshpet-pet-food-having-mold-problems/ This is what the average PF Consumer would never know, unless they’re a TAPF follower. In spite of what seems to be an ideal formula, (in this case storage is at issue) but it’s equally about sourcing AND processing. To begin with are those supporting ingredients “seconds” (just not suitable for retail, or restaurant trash in first stages of decomposition)? And where does the PF rate on a scale of 10 to 1? Good to “how horrible”? Because your pet would be eating this food …. continuously.

Quality (much less processing, or even storage) can not be easily proven. The company mentions using protein not rendered (currently an “evil” word in PF Consumer lexicon). And so their advertising (website) mentions it. But do they EVER use expired protein, that’s not been intentionally slaughtered? Meaning diseased and unsuitable for breeding? We’ve been so intensely educated by the TAPF that it’s difficult NOT to be overly skeptical about everything we read (meaning all the brands not vetted by Susan’s 2018 List).

I wonder if this company was invited to be, but couldn’t present a Pledge to Quality or honestly answer a list of questions? Yes, PF Consumers SHOULD question what they want to buy, and to report their doubts (and advertising discrepancies) to the proper Agencies (as what the article encourages). Doing so will demonstrate to Agencies the growing awareness of PF Consumers, who are becoming better educated every day. Keep in mind, for a real pick of preferred PF, Susan does have a 2018 List. The opposite of what’s likely to be a conflict between advertisement and truth! She’s done all that leg-work …. for you!

If consumers have a right to obtain evidence of claims on pet food labels, they should be able to obtain evidence supporting a claim that a pet food is formulated to meet the nutritional levels established by the AAFCO. That would mean providing the complete nutrient profile of that food. Although some manufacturers (such as Champion and Honest Kitchen, and others) put this information right on their website, many (probably most) other manufacturers, including those of so-called premium foods, will not do this; some even say that information is proprietary and will not provide it if asked.